Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A little time between nominations would be wise here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article practically lacks reliable sources. Following are my analysis:

alexa on it's own doesn't make article noteworthy, but it's fine as a source for the alexa rank in the infobox
the wikipediocracy mission statement is a primary source
dailydot cannot be described as a reliable source at all.
the talking writing article only mentions wikipediocracy in a small paragraph.
the salon article states he was actually approached by wikipediocracy, which can imply some conflict of interest
new zeeland listener only refers to wikipediocracy in reference to a "one member"
the twitter feed is not a secondary source
netprofet doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the telegraph doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the register doesn't refer to wikipediocracy
the blog is a primary source

I've tried to find more primary sources using google but haven't been able to find any (only finding blog posts). Searching for wikipediocracy under google news gives no results at all.

I must conclude that wikipediocracy lacks significant coverage and should be deleted. _→AzaToth 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We recently kept this article after extensive discussion. No useful purpose is served by reopening this divisive issue so soon. (See discussion on my talkpage for discussion of possible COI issues relevant to my !vote.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the previous discussions into consideration, but as there has been no effort of trying to produce any better references for the article, I feel there is no probability that any new relevant sources will be added. _→AzaToth 14:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and a fresh trout for the nominator. We just had several discussions like this. Recent consensus is that the article belongs and that is very unlikely to have changed in such a short period of time. - Mr X 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Although I agree with the nom's points this should be closed on proceedural grounds - the last relisted AFD was only closed on 3 June 2013. If you want to challenge the keep decision go to DRV. Echoing MrX, although consensus can change I don't see anything in the last 20 days that would make it so. The community has already decided to keep this article twice (or technically 4 times) within the last month--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, trout nominator for wasting everybody's time here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: I did not participate in the previous AfDs. I'd like an opportunity to provide my analysis of the article's notability. First, I tried to find third-party reliable sources about this article's topic. I cound not find a single source. Second, I took a look at the sources used in the article. Obviously, we can ignore primary sources such as Alexa and Twitter in determining notability. So, looking at the remaining sources, we have:

1 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia I'm not sure Daily Dot qualifies as a reliable source. So I'll defer this one until later.

2 - Talking Writing - What Should We Do About Wikipedia? I'm not familiar with source, but the About page claims it was founded by "Martha Nichols, a professional writer, editor, and journalist who teaches magazine writing at Harvard University" so it's probably OK.

3 - Salon - Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia This source is fine.

4 - Wikipedia and the scourge of “revenge editors” I'm not familiar with this source but the reference article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

5 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia pot article loses bongs, gets OK'd in Russia Another Daily Dot article. See above.

6 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia's odd relationship with the Kazakh dictatorship Another Daily Dot article. See above.

7 - Net Prophet - Critics question neutrality of Kazakh Wikipedia I'm not familiar with this source but the reference article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

8 - Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales restricts discussion of Tony Blair friendship This source is find, but it doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

9 - Daily Dot - Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal Another Daily Dot article. See above.

10 - The Register - Wales: Let's ban Gibraltar-crazy Wikipedians for 5 years I'm not sure if The Register qualifies as a reliable source as I know a lot of editors who object to its use. But that issue may be moot as this article doesn't seem to mention Wikipediocracy.

So far, we only have a single bona-fide third-party reliable source about this topic (Salon). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on procedural grounds. Failing that, keep as passing WP:GNG largely on the basis of the Salon article, though I see no reason why the Daily Dot should not be considered a WP:RS reliable source for this purpose. See, Forbes article The Daily Dot Is A Local Newspaper For The Social Web. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per above. Also "The Daily Dot"'s status as a reliable source was already discussed in previous discussions, and so it is at best sloppy to ignore previous discussions without mentioning new information or pointing out errors in previous discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The last one just closed 3 weeks ago, another nomination so soon, re-hashing the same points attempted in that AfD, is extremely ill-informed and lacking in common sense. In that AfD, Salon and the Daily Dot were determined to be sufficient for the sourcing requirements of a Wikipedia article. We're not going to re-open that discussion again; consensus was reached 3 weeks ago, and editors don't get to re-hammer their opinions day after day after day on matters considered settled. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - exact same args as previous nom. Too soon since last AfD. Plenty of WP:RS available - Alison ^❤ 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per consensus from the previous discussions. Optimom (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I voted delete in the last AfDs. The consensus was keep at the end of them, and it wasn't even that long ago. There is simply no way this should've been opened again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.